Risk prioritization using analytic process network for metro rail implementation projects in developing countries: a typical case study of Vietnam

References

• Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2010. Socialist Republic of Viet Nam: Preparing the Ho Chi Minh City Urban Mass Rapid Transit Line 2 Project (Financed by Technical Assistance Special Fund). Hồ Chí Minh City, Vietnam: Asian Development Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Afzal F, Yunfei S, Nazir M, Bhatti SM. 2019. A review of artificial intelligence-based risk assessment methods for capturing complexity-risk interdependencies: cost overrun in construction projects. IJMPB. 14(2):300–328.
   Google Scholar
• Afzal F, Yunfei S, Sajid M, Afzal F. 2018. Risk assessment of first overseas mass rapid transit project: promulgating interpretive qualitative paradigm for China Pakistan construction concession. Int Trans J Eng Manage Appl Sci Technol. 9(4):253–269.
   Google Scholar
• Afzali A, Sabri S, Rashid M, Samani JMV, Ludin ANM. 2014. Inter-municipal landfill site selection using analytic network process. Water Resour Manage. 28(8):2179–2194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Hosani IIA, Dweiri FT, Ojiako U. 2020. A study of cost overruns in complex multi-stakeholder road projects in the United Arab Emirates. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manage. 11(6):1250–1259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Nahyan MT, Hawas YE, Raza M. 2021. An exploratory study of relationships between stakeholders’ risk perceptions and their roles and experience in construction industry. Int J Constr Manage. 21(7):738–754.
   Google Scholar
• AlSanad S. 2017. Megaproject and risk management: a case of Kuwait. In: Book of Proceedings 5th International Conference on Sustainable Development. Rome, Italy: European Center of Sustainable Development; p. 79.
   Google Scholar
• Alsharidah YMY, Alazzawi A. 2020. Artificial intelligence and digital transformation in supply chain management A case study in saudi companies. 2020 International Conference on Data Analytics for Business and Industry: Way towards a Sustainable Economy (ICDABI). NJ: IEEE. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Amadi A. 2019. A cross-sectional snapshot of the insider view of highway infrastructure delivery in the developing world. Int J Constr Manage. 19(6):472–491.
   Google Scholar
• Ariyanto IN, Purba HH, Purba A. 2020. A systematic review and analysis of risk assessment in highway construction project. Oper Res Eng Sci: Theory Appl. 3(3):29–47.
   Google Scholar
• Ayat M, Rehman H, Qureshi SM, Kang CW. 2021. Assessing the causes of project overruns in tunnel construction projects in Pakistan. Int J Constr Manage. 1–11. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2021.2017541.
   Google Scholar
• Bahamid RA, Doh SI. 2017. A review of risk management process in construction projects of developing countries. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 271(1):012042.
   Google Scholar
• Banerjee D, Jagadeesh P. 2019. Risk prioritization in infrastructure projects with FAHP–A case study. In: Project management practices. Pune, India: National Institute of Construction Management and Research.
   Google Scholar
• Barakchi M, Torp O, Belay AM. 2017. Cost estimation methods for transport infrastructure: a systematic literature review. Procedia Eng. 196:270–277.
   Google Scholar
• Bathaei A, Mardani A, Baležentis T, Awang SR, Streimikiene D, Fei GC, Zakuan N. 2019. Application of fuzzy analytical network process (ANP) and VIKOR for the assessment of green agility critical success factors in dairy companies. Symmetry. 11(2):250.
   Google Scholar
• Boateng P, Chen Z, Ogunlana SO. 2015. An analytical network process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects. Int J Project Manage. 33(8):1795–1811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown T, Beyeler W, Barton D. 2004. Assessing infrastructure interdependencies: the challenge of risk analysis for complex adaptive systems. Int J Crit Infrastruct. 1(1):108–117.
   Google Scholar
• Bu-Qammaz AS, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT. 2009. Risk assessment of international construction projects using the analytic network process. Can J Civ Eng. 36(7):1170–1181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen F-H, Hsu T-S, Tzeng G-H. 2011. A balanced scorecard approach to establish a performance evaluation and relationship model for hot spring hotels based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP. Int J Hosp Management. 30(4):908–932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen H, Hao G, Poon SW. 2004. Cost risk management in west rail project of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: AACE International Transaction; p. INT.09.1–INT.09.5.
   Google Scholar
• Chen Z, Boateng P, Ogunlana SO. 2019. A dynamic system approach to risk analysis for megaproject delivery. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Manage Procure Law. 172(6):p. 232–252.
   Google Scholar
• Cho S-H, Eppinger SD. 2005. A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 52(3):316–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulter K, Sarkis J. 2005. Development of a media selection model using the analytic network process. Int J Adver. 24(2):193–215.
   Google Scholar
• Enyoghasi C, Brown A, Aydin R, Badurdeen F. 2020. Quantitative risk modelling for evaluating sustainable product designs. IJSM. 4(2/3/4):165–185.
   Google Scholar
• Erol H, Dikmen I, Atasoy G, Birgonul MT. 2022. An analytic network process model for risk quantification of mega construction projects. Expert Syst Appl. 191:116215–116217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fadavi-Ghaffari M, Azad A, Shariatzadeh H, Taghizadeh G, Aminizadeh S. 2017. Translation, cultural adaptation, face and content validity of the Persian version “Patient-rated wrist evaluation”(PRWE-Persian) questionnaire. J Mod Rehabil. 11(1):51–62.
   Google Scholar
• Farahani AF, Didehkhani H, Khalili-Damghani K, Sarfaraz AH, Hajirezaie M. 2022. A framework for interactive risk assessment in projects: case study of oil and gas megaprojects in presence of sanctions. JM2. 17(2):569–600.
   Google Scholar
• Funderburg RG, Nixon H, Boarnet M, Ferguson G. 2010. New highways and land use change: results from a quasi-experimental research design. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract. 44(2):76–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galbusera L, Giannopoulos G. 2019. Leveraging network theory and stress tests to assess interdependencies in critical infrastructures. In: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience. Switzerland: Springer; p. 135–155.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman CM. 1987. The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs. 12(6):729–734.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goh CS, Abdul-Rahman H, Abdul Samad Z. 2013. Applying risk management workshop for a public construction project: Case study. J Constr Eng Manage. 139(5):572–580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. 2000. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 32(4):1008–1015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta VK, Thakkar JJ. 2018. A quantitative risk assessment methodology for construction project. Sādhanā. 43(7):1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastak M, Shaked A. 2000. ICRAM-1: model for international construction risk assessment. J Manage Eng. 16(1):59–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilber CA, Robert-Nicoud F. 2013. On the origins of land use regulations: theory and evidence from US metro areas. J Urban Econ. 75(1):29–43.
   Google Scholar
• Huang C-N, Liou JJ, Chuang Y-C. 2014. A method for exploring the interdependencies and importance of critical infrastructures. Knowledge Based Syst. 55:66–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huo T, Ren H, Cai W, Shen GQ, Liu B, Zhu M, Wu H. 2018. Measurement and dependence analysis of cost overruns in megatransport infrastructure projects: case study in Hong Kong. J Constr Eng Manage. 144(3):05018001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ismail MR, Sun M, Bowles G. 2021. A risk-oriented tender evaluation system for construction projects in Malaysia. ECAM. 28(7):1887–1907.
   Google Scholar
• Kalutara P, Zhang G, Setunge S, Wakefield R. 2021. Decision-making model for sustainable management of Australian community buildings: combined approach using analytical hierarchy process and neuro-fuzzy system. Int J Constr Manage. 1–12. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2021.1969322.
   Google Scholar
• Joakim EP, Mortsch L, Oulahen G, Harford D, Klein Y, Damude K, Tang K. 2016. Using system dynamics to model social vulnerability and resilience to coastal hazards. IJEM. 12(4):366–391.
   Google Scholar
• Johansen C, Tien I. 2018. Probabilistic multi-scale modeling of interdependencies between critical infrastructure systems for resilience. Sustainable Resilient Infrast. 3(1):1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kabir G, Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S. 2016. A fuzzy Bayesian belief network for safety assessment of oil and gas pipelines. Struct Infrastruct Eng. 12(8):874–889.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karamoozian A, Wu D. 2020. A hybrid risk prioritization approach in construction projects using failure mode and effective analysis. ECAM. 27(9):2661–2686.
   Google Scholar
• Khademi N, Behnia K, Saedi R. 2014. Using analytic hierarchy/network process (AHP/ANP) in developing countries: shortcomings and suggestions. Eng Econ. 59(1):2–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khodakarami V, Abdi A. 2014. Project cost risk analysis: a Bayesian networks approach for modeling dependencies between cost items. Int J Project Manage. 32(7):1233–1245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khumpaisal S, Bunnag K, Tippratum C. 2018. Political risks and impacts to Thailand real estate development industry. Int J Bus Econ Aff. 3(4):146–152.
   Google Scholar
• Kliem RL, Ludin IS. 2019. Reducing project risk. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Koç Y, Warnier M, Kooij RE, Brazier FM. 2013. An entropy-based metric to quantify the robustness of power grids against cascading failures. Saf Sci. 59:126–134.
   Google Scholar
• Liu Z, Jiao Y, Li A, Liu X. 2021. Risk assessment of urban rail transit PPP project construction based on bayesian network. Sustainability. 13(20):11507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu J. 2010. August Bayesian network inference on risks of construction schedule-cost. In: 2010 International Conference of Information Science and Management Engineering. Vol. 2. NJ: IEEE; p. 15–18.
   Google Scholar
• Lo TY, Fung IW, Tung KC. 2006. Construction delays in Hong Kong civil engineering projects. J Constr Eng Manage. 132(6):636–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Love PE, Zhou J, Edwards DJ, Irani Z, Sing C-P. 2017. Off the rails: The cost performance of infrastructure rail projects. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract. 99:14–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu M-T, Hsu C-C, Liou JJ, Lo H-W. 2018. A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for international airports. J Air Transp Manage. 71:9–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu Y, Luo L, Wang H, Le Y, Shi Q. 2015. Measurement model of project complexity for large-scale projects from task and organization perspective. Int J Project Manage. 33(3):610–622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzouk M, El-Hesnawi M. 2018. Framework for assessing serviceability and socio-economic risk associated with PPPs projects in Libya. J Civ Eng Manage. 24(7):556–567.
   Google Scholar
• Mashaqbeh SMA, Munive-Hernandez JE, Khan MK, Khazaleh AA. 2020. Developing a systematic methodology to build a systems dynamics model for assessment of non-technical risks in power plants. IJSSE. 10(1):39–71.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen T, Nguyen LH, Chileshe N, Hallo L. 2022. Investigating critical risk factors of selecting joint venture contractors for infrastructure projects implementation in Vietnam. Int J Constr Manag. 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2065076.
   Google Scholar
• Norouzi A, Namin HG. 2019. A hybrid fuzzy TOPSIS–best worst method for risk prioritization in megaprojects. Civ Eng J. 5(6):1257–1272.
   Google Scholar
• Ou-Yang C, Chen W-L. 2017. Applying a risk assessment approach for cost analysis and decision-making: a case study for a basic design engineering project. J Chin Instit Eng. 40(5):378–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pezeshki MZ, Shadman A, Alizadeh M, Hakimi S, Heidari F. 2017. Validity and reliability of the questionnaire for assessing women’s reproductive history in Azar cohort study. J Caring Sci. 6(2):183–186.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Poledna S, Thurner S. 2016. Elimination of systemic risk in financial networks by means of a systemic risk transaction tax. Quant Finance. 16(10):1599–1613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punyamurthula S. 2018. Bayesian-integrated system dynamics modelling for production line risk assessment [theses and dissertations]. Mechanical Engineering. p. 124.
   Google Scholar
• Qazi A, Quigley J, Dickson A, Kirytopoulos K. 2016. Project complexity and risk management: Towards modelling project complexity driven risk paths in construction projects. Int J Project Manage. 34(7):1183–1198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezakhani P. 2012. Classifying key risk factors in construction projects. Buletinul Institutului Politehnic Din Lasi Sectia Constructii, Arhitectura. 58(2):27.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL, Vargas LG. 2006. Decision making with the analytic network process. Vol. 282. NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL, Vargas LG. 2013. The analytic network process. In: Decision making with the analytic network process. Switzerland: Springer; p. 1–40.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1987. Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Decis Sci. 18(2):157–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanni-Anibire MO, Mohamad Zin R, Olatunji SO. 2022. Causes of delay in the global construction industry: a meta analytical review. Int J Constr Manage. 22(8):1395–1407.
   Google Scholar
• Sarkar D, Singh M. 2021. Development of risk index for mass rapid transit system project in Western India through application of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP). Int J Constr Manage. 21(5):439–451.
   Google Scholar
• Sarkar D, Singh M. 2022. Risk analysis by integrated fuzzy expected value method and fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis for an elevated metro rail project of Ahmedabad, India. Int J Constr Manage. 22(10):1818–1829.
   Google Scholar
• Singh S, Johari S, Hasan A, Jha KN. 2022. Risk factors in dedicated freight corridor and mass rapid-transit metro rail infrastructure projects. J Leg Aff Dispute Resolut Eng Constr. 14(2):04521050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha M. 2021. Harnessing land value capture: perspectives from India’s urban rail corridors. Land Use Policy. 108:105526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonmez R. 2011. Range estimation of construction costs using neural networks with bootstrap prediction intervals. Expert Syst Appl. 38(8):9913–9917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steininger BI, Groth M, Weber BL. 2020. Cost overruns and delays in infrastructure projects: the case of Stuttgart 21. JPIF. 39(3):256–282.
   Google Scholar
• Tavassolirizi M, Sarvari H, Chan DWM, Olawumi TO. 2020. Factors affecting delays in rail transportation projects using Analytic Network Process: The case of Iran. Int J Constr Manage. 1–12. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1819946.
   Google Scholar
• Terstegen S, Petz A, Schlick CM, Duckwitz S. 2016. Simulation-based scheduling and risk assessment of complex projects under uncertainty. In: Advances in ergonomic design of systems, products and processes. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Vieweg; p. 411–429.
   Google Scholar
• Tran PQ, Tran NTQ, Nguyen PT. 2020. Practical solutions to ensure the schedule management of Ho Chi Minh City Urban Railway Project in Vietnam: survey of expert’s opinions. cea. 8(4):466–474.
   Google Scholar
• Valipour A, Yahaya N, Md Noor N, Kildienė S, Sarvari H, Mardani A. 2015. A fuzzy analytic network process method for risk prioritization in freeway PPP projects: an Iranian case study. Int J Constr Manage. 21(7):933–947.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz CF, Bausell RB. 1981. Nursing research: design, statistics, and computer analysis. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis Company.
   Google Scholar
• Wang X, Zhu J, Ma F, Li C, Cai Y, Yang Z. 2016. Bayesian network-based risk assessment for hazmat transportation on the Middle Route of the South-to-North Water Transfer Project in China. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 30(3):841–857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber P, Medina-Oliva G, Simon C, Iung B. 2012. Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 25(4):671–682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2018. Implementation completion and result report IDA-43470/TF-58293. Hanoi, Vietnam: The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Wu W-S, Yang C-F, Chang J-C, Château P-A, Chang Y-C. 2015. Risk assessment by integrating interpretive structural modeling and Bayesian network, case of offshore pipeline project. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 142:515–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue Y, Xiang P, Jia F, Liu Z. 2020. Risk assessment of high-speed rail projects: a risk coupling model based on system dynamics. IJERPH. 17(15):5307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan H, Gao C, Elzarka H, Mostafa K, Tang W. 2019. Risk assessment for construction of urban rail transit projects. Saf Sci. 118:583–594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yucelgazi F, Yitmen I. 2019. An ANP model for risk assessment in large-scale transport infrastructure projects. Arab J Sci Eng. 44(5):4257–4275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yüksel İ, Dagdeviren M. 2007. Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis–a case study for a textile firm. Inf Sci. 177(16):3364–3382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Huang Y, Wu X, Skibniewski MJ. 2017. Risk-based estimate for operational safety in complex projects under uncertainty. Appl Soft Comput. 54:108–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Wu X, Qin Y, Skibniewski MJ, Liu W. 2016. Towards a fuzzy Bayesian network based approach for safety risk analysis of tunnel‐induced pipeline damage. Risk Anal. 36(2):278–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu Q, Dou Y, Sarkis J. 2010. A portfolio‐based analysis for green supplier management using the analytical network process. Supply Chain Manage Int J. 15(4):306–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar